Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA, J.
Shakti Chand Sharma and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another - Respondents
CWP No. 5063 of 2020
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vishali Lakhanpal, Parav Sharma
For the Respondent: Pranay Pratap Singh

Service counted for increments must also be counted for pension benefits, as established by judicial precedent.

Headnote:
(A) CCS (Pension) Rules - Adhoc service - Petitioners sought to have their adhoc service counted towards pension and retiral benefits - Court directed State Authorities to examine the case in light of prior judgment mandating that service counted for increments shall also count for pension. (Paras 1, 5, 7)

(B) Judicial Precedent - The principle established in Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors. mandates that any service which counts for increments shall also count for pension. (Paras 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners were appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers on adhoc basis from 1979 to 1982 and sought to have this period counted for pension despite breaks in service. They argued that increments granted during this period should validate their claim for pension benefits. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court directed the State Authorities to examine the petitioners' case for counting their adhoc service towards pension, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in accordance with the established judicial precedent. (Paras 7)

Issues: The main issues were whether the adhoc service with breaks could be counted for pension and the applicability of the precedent set in Sita Ram's case. (Paras 3, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that service counted for increments should also be counted for pension, directing the State Authorities to review the petitioners' claims without discrimination. (Paras 7)

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to examine the case.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. Petitioners [Shakti Chand Sharma & Amar Nath Sharma], have come up before this Court seeking the following relief:-

“That the adhoc service of the petitioners rendered from July 29.06.1979 to 24.05.1982 in the case of petitioner No.1 and from July 23.07.1979 to 24.05.1982 in the case of Petitioner No.2 may kindly be ordered to be counted towards pension and other retiral benefits w.e.f. due date with all consequentialbenefits.”

2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis in June-July 1979 and they worked as such with fictional breaks till May 1982. However, from May 1982, the petitioners have served without fictional breaks i.e. continuously and uninterruptedly without. The petitioners were given annual increments for the adhoc service rendered from May 1982 onwards till their regularization as TGTs on 23.09.1985, in case of petitioner No.1 and w.e.f. 07.10.1985 in case of petitioner No.2. Thereafter, they served in various capacities and the petitioner No.1 retired from service as Principle [School Cadre] on 30.09.2009 and the petitioner No.2 retired from service as Principal [School Cadre] on 30.04.2010.In above background, the petitioners are seeking benefit of adhoc service rendered as Trained Graduate Teachers from June-July 1979 till May 1982, to be counted for pension on the plea that once the respondents have granted increments for this period of since [June, July 1979 to 1982] then, such service should counted towards service rendered from May 1982 till retirement(s) for pension, as given to other incumbents after judicial intervention and/or otherwise in view of fact that the action of the State Authorities in giving fictional breaks after short intervals was a camouflage for depriving the petitioners of continuous service and to deprive him of the service benefits accruing therefrom.

3. The Respondents No.1 & 2 have filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 06.08.2021, taking the plea of delay and laches; and the period of adhoc service with breaks cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits; and when, in view of CCS [Pension] Rules only the continuous and uninterrupted adhoc/temporary/officiating service followed by regularization is countable as qualifying service for pension/retiral benefits. In these circumstances, the Respondents-State Authorities have stated that adhoc service rendered by petitioner with breaks [June 1979 till May 1982] cannot be counted for pension/retiral benefits and the prayer for dismissing the writ petition was made.

4. In rebuttal, the petitioners have filed a rejoinder, denying the averments of the reply. The petitioners stated that the Respondents have granted increments and seniority to the petitioner for entire adhoc period [as TGT, with breaks and without break]. It is averred that once the period from June 1979 has been counted for increments and seniority then, such period deserves to be counted for pension/retiral benefits and the claim for higher retiral benefits including higher pension, is a recurring cause, resulting in loss every month.

5. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions, states that the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioners, in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 15.07.2010, mandating that any service which counts for increments shall count for pension and moreover, in facts of this case, once the period of adhoc service of petitioners has been counted for increments [as in petition and rejoinder] then, such period may be counted for pension/retiral benefits [Statement Taken on Record].

6. Keeping in view the limited prayer made by Learned Vice Counsel appearing for petitioners, the Learned State Counsel states that the claim of the petitioners need

Click Here to Read the rest of this document